You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Fathers Talk About Their Unvaccinated Children and the Unbelievable Differences from Most Kids.

in #vaccines • 8 years ago (edited)

timbo I have watched your comments in these vaccination discussions and I see you have changed your tone from reactionary to much more reserved which I applaud, BUT I HAVE to challenge you to the same challenge that I have extended to anybody that is willing: show me one instance of a vaccine being efficacious and I will donate all my steem to your account and leave the platform, because of your claim:

I have also come to the conclusion that once upon a time. They were, and in some parts of the world. A vaccine can very well save your life.

But I am going to rephrase my challenge to evoke some kind of proof of your claim, so with the benefit of restating my challenge: prove your claim, that vaccines save your life, in certain parts of the world, at one time or another.

8 years ago in #vaccines by
$0.00
    Reply 19
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    PROOF:

    Smallpox vaccine, the first successful vaccine to be developed, was introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796. He followed up his observation that milkmaids who had previously caught cowpox did not later catch smallpox by showing that inoculated cowpox protected against inoculated smallpox.

    SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine

    In the time of smallpox, a similar strain of the sickness cowpox would prevent others from getting sick if they got cowpox via working around cows, or by vaccine.

    As your challenge stated:

    Prove your claim, that vaccines save your life, in certain parts of the world, at one time or another.

    So in Europe during the years 1796 to the late 1800s I believe and the proof shows, getting a smallpox vaccine was very likely to save your life.

    "The mortality of the severe form of smallpox—variola major—was very high without vaccination, up to 35% in some outbreaks.[4] A method of inducing immunity known as inoculation, insufflation or "variolation" was practiced before the development of a modern vaccine and likely occurred in India, Africa, and China well before the practice arrived in Europe"

    In China in the time from 1567–1572 the below information would also prove that a type of vaccine, or inoculation which is another word for vaccine. The case of smallpox vaccines would also have been praised as saving millions of lives.

    In China, powdered smallpox scabs were blown up the noses of the healthy. The patients would then develop a mild case of the disease and from then on were immune to it. The technique did have a 0.5–2.0% mortality rate, but that was considerably less than the 20–30% mortality rate of the disease itself.

    Now, don't get me wrong, the easy way to prove that there was a time and a place that vaccines were effective and the better choice is easy to prove yet... I will also have to state... this is no longer the majority of cases. Especially in the corporate world of the Big Pharma Companies all over the world trying to make a buck on the backs of the fear mongering they cause.

    I do appreciate the challenge though, this was a eye opener and a fun dive into more information on the subject.

    Have an awesome day!
    ~ @Timbo

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago 

      Smallpox vaccine, the first successful vaccine to be developed, was introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796. He followed up his observation that milkmaids who had previously caught cowpox did not later catch smallpox by showing that inoculated cowpox protected against inoculated smallpox.

      First unfound claim:

      Smallpox vaccine, the first successful vaccine to be developed, was introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796.

      Why was it successful?
      Because of a second unfounded claim:

      "by showing that inoculated cowpox protected against inoculated smallpox"

      Any sources that back up this claim?

      Also the second paragraph which deals with inoculation NOT vaccination I have to research their statistics and understand exactly how they derived them and from what populations, so wait for the follow up.
      As it stands vaccination and inoculation are synonyms yet one bypasess (vaccination) the mucus barrier and another does not, so how is that the same thing? It isn't.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         8 years ago 

        Source for this also? "The technique did have a 0.5–2.0% mortality rate, but that was considerably less than the 20–30% mortality rate of the disease itself."

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           8 years ago 

          How about this book detailing smallpox:
          The Poisoned Needle

          In the simple conventional/common sense how can inviting disease by inoculation prevent disease? Simply because milkmaids don't catch smallpox because (assumption) they have been exposed to cowpox, as if one disease could nullify another, and even more insane, a different animal's disease could prevent another animals similar disease, another assumption.

          $0.00
            Reply
            Loading...
            [-]
             8 years ago 

            I have found a newer edition of the 4th cited source in your wikipidea article over here:
            http://nitroflare.com/view/CA9FF8B215AE805/Am-Medicine.com-180915-m4.pdf/free

            It will be interesting to see exactly the statistics and the context and if they too are simply unsubstantiated claims or are actually facts.

            $0.00
              Reply
              [-]
               8 years ago 

              Interesting, the 35% figure doesn't appear anywhere in the newer edition, but what's far more interesting is how there is absolutely a cacophony of assamptions and assertions based on conjecture without a shred of evidence, reading the section about fluoridation is laughable! Give it a try, see if you can stomach this "medical science", and please let me know if you have more "PROOF" because we both know that what you presented here is lacking in facts and hence has no basis to be called PROOF besides

              proof that wikipedia is absolutely ok with assumptions and suppositions and has no problem labeling something pseudo as it's presenting it's "unbiased" view

              $0.00
                Reply
                [-]
                 8 years ago (edited)

                Even more laughable

                "Generally, two types of viruses are known: Variola major and variola minor (alastrim).
                Although the viruses are indistinguishable antigenically, their fatality rates differ considerably
                (<1% for variola minor, 3-40% for variola major). The high replicative fidelity of
                variola DNA polymerase enzyme limited its ability to significantly mutate and adapt to
                the humans, which preserved the antigenic cross-reactivity with other orthopoxviruses
                such as vaccinia virus that was used for vaccination. There is no known animal reservoir
                for variola virus.                "

                3%-40%? LAUGHABLE! Where are your sources? NOWHERE! Laughable!
                a discrepancy like this is outrageous! And that there is no way to distinguish between the two yet... there is two!
                And even more damning. WHERE IS THE VIRUS?! Nowhere! AGAIN LAUGHABLE!

                Next..

                $0.00
                  Reply
                  [-]
                   8 years ago 

                  Yes, yes ... I will have to do an articlw on the REAL history of smallpox.
                  What we have been told is mostly myth.

                  [-]
                   8 years ago 


                  @timbo I posted the link to the pdf, did you have a chance to check my claims and the claims of the book? This is a snip of the smallpox section from the book just to show that I am not full of shit.

                  $0.00
                    Reply
                    [-]
                     8 years ago (edited)

                    Indistinguishable... Hilarious, @canadian-coconut don't stop posting this, I took a hiatus from social media for a couple years and I am glad I did as steemit cannot censor us.

                    $0.00
                      Reply
                      [-]
                       8 years ago 

                      @timbo what do you have to say about what I pointed out?

                      $0.00
                        Reply
                        [-]
                         8 years ago 

                        I have been offline for 4 weeks. Just seeing this for the first time. What I have to say right now is that this isn't worth my time and I work a lot so I am not spending anymore time on this. Nothing personal just the last thing I want to do is sit here and argue with someone about who is right or wrong on a topic that doesn't have much weight.

                        Wishing you the best and good luck my friend! I do appreciate the time and effort you put into it and it is obvious you have a passion for this.

                        Have a great night!

                        $0.00
                          Reply
                          [-]
                           8 years ago 

                          I understand but that doesn't mean it doesn't have much weight, it matters very much because you decided to take up the challenge and I provided evidence of scientific/medical fraud and outlined the claims as unfounded. It's not about who is right and who is wrong, its inconsequential, it is about finding truth and exterminating fiction portrayed as truth.

                          Antibodies for immunolabeling by light and electron microscopy: not for the faint hearted
                          Read through that, the pertinent part is this:

                          A serious consequence of these facts is that an antibody against a defined antigen, e.g., a whole purified protein or a peptide, could bind to structurally related antigens that have a completely or partially different amino sequence (molecular mimicry). This means that, predicting an antibody has high affinity for the immunizing antigen is extremely difficult if not impossible.

                          It says in very clear terms that the method for gaining immunity through antibodies cannot be predicted, therefore you cannot hold a candle to the claim that vaccines work period, ever.

                          $0.00
                            Reply
                            [-]
                             8 years ago 

                            I see you have a passion as well or at least interest in this topic, why not take up the information provided and verify it for veracity and factuality?
                            What do you risk? Besides, don't you wish not to fall a victim to lies and propaganda? I sure don't want to see my fellow man mislead and fooled/bamboozled.

                            $0.00
                              Reply
                              [-]
                               8 years ago 

                              I read the first 2 lines of your comment.

                              Look man, it is a month old.

                              I didn't realize you did anything either, I commented a month ago on someone elses post, and you proved me wrong good for you. Can't be right all the time.

                              $0.00
                                Reply
                                [-]
                                 8 years ago 

                                I'm glad you're back and just in time before the topic would have been locked and subsequently the replies. I have seen you change your stance from one of pro vaccinations to one of being a lot more open to information and critical thinking about vaccinations and it's effect and I respect that and wholeheartedly applaud you for that.

                                [-]
                                 8 years ago 

                                There's nothing wrong with being wrong because you believe otherwise! There is something wrong when you know you're wrong and continue on that path, don't you agree? Did you know that there are numerous cases of vaccine developers and researchers that have spent decades in that endeavor and then came to realize that it was all a big lie, found out that they had been wrong and changed directions.

                                A friend of mine once said to me, he said, Look, if we weren't supposed to turn around, why does a car have a steering wheel? Are we just supposed to crash into the wall? No, we're supposed to say, Listen, I was going the wrong way... Reverse!
                                Lauryn Hill

                                $0.00
                                  Reply